Jaramillo v. Social Security Administration
1:16-cv-00428
D.N.M.Dec 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff applied for disability benefits on February 8, 2012, with an alleged onset date of February 28, 2008.
- ALJ denied benefits initially and on reconsideration; hearing held July 15, 2014.
- ALJ found eight impairments, but concluded they did not meet a Listing and assessed RFC.
- RFC allowed light work with limitations: no interaction with the general public; only occasional/superficial coworker interactions; limited climbing and postural activities.
- The Appeals Council denied review; Plaintiff moved to reverse and remand asserting error in evaluating medical opinions.
- The district court granted remand due to improper consideration of consultative/examining and non-examining psychologists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC properly incorporates Dr. Hughson's findings | Jaramillo contends ALJ erred by giving partial weight to Dr. Hughson and not explaining rejection of certain significant limitations. | Berryhill contends the ALJ reasonably weighed Dr. Hughson and incorporated some limitations. | Remand required; improper weighing and unexplained rejection of Dr. Hughson's limitations. |
| Whether non-examining agency opinions were properly weighed | ALJ failed to identify non-examining opinions and gave insufficient justification for greater weight. | ALJ properly weighed non-examining opinions as consistent with record evidence. | Remand required for proper consideration and weighing of non-examining opinions. |
| Whether the ALJ adequately explained weight given to opinions | ALJ selectively adopted parts of an opinion without explanation and failed to discuss uncontroverted or probative evidence. | ALJ provided a rational explanation for the weight given to opinions. | Remand for proper explanation and weighing of all relevant opinions. |
| Whether the opinion evidence undermines step-five analysis | Misweighting of mental health opinions taints vocational findings about other-work availability. | Findings supported by substantial evidence despite some opinion-wieght issues. | Remand to resolve opinion weight affecting step-five determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (requirement to discuss probative evidence and weigh all evidence)
- Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must discuss evidence supporting and not supporting decision)
- Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2004) (examinations vs. agency opinions—weight hierarchy)
- Zoltanski v. F.A.A., 372 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2004) (two inconsistent conclusions do not defeat substantial evidence)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (reviewer may not reweigh evidence; substantial evidence standard)
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must discuss significant probative evidence)
- Harrold v. Berryhill, 2017 WL 4924662 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished analysis on evaluating medical opinions (official reporter cited in other materials))
- Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996) (three-step process for assessing past work and RFC)